Below are some of the latest happenings in the paralegal community. These
short snippets represent excerpts of stories that can be found in the
May/June 2008 issue of Legal Assistant Today.

Got News? - Do you know
of a significant new law under consideration or recently passed in your area? Are you
aware of changes to rules or codes that significantly impact the work done in your
specialty area?

If so, we want to hear from you. If
you submit an original news lead that turns into a news story that we print in Legal
Assistant Today, we will pay you $25. If you have a original news
lead that you think we would like to hear about,
e-mail us.

Proposal could affect any nonlawyer who prepares
documents for the public.

By Tommy Sangchompuphen

The Hawaii Supreme Court is reviewing public
comments on a proposal it set forth in October 2007 to define the
practice of law. The proposal under consideration is in the form of
an addition to the Hawaii Supreme Court Rules and defines the
practice of law as the “giving of legal advice or legal assistance
to another person.” The definition includes, but is not limited to,
“giving advice or counsel to another person about the person’s legal
rights and obligations or the legal rights and obligations of
others.” Several exceptions and exclusions to the definition were
included in the proposed rule, including the performance of services
as a paralegal under the supervision of a judge, justice or member
of the bar.

In essence, the proposal would cause businesses
that provide documents for do-it-yourself court filings to close,
and prevent any nonlawyer from assisting others in completing legal
documents. Conviction for the unauthorized practice of law in
Hawaii
is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,000
fine.

The Hawaii State Bar Association first sent a
proposed rule to the Hawaii Supreme Court in July 2007. After
review, the Hawaii Supreme Court proposed its version of the rule in
October 2007, posting that version on its Web site and requesting
public comment through Jan. 25.

On Jan. 25, the HSBA asked the Hawaii Supreme
Court for additional time to submit its response to the court’s
proposed rule, citing numerous comments and questions it had
received about the rule, and indicating that it wanted adequate time
to review and possibly develop changes to the proposed rule. The
time for the HSBA to respond was extended until March 28.

Recognizing the concerns expressed by other
professionals, including
Hawaii’s realtors and certified public
accountants, HSBA President Jeffrey Sia sent a letter to the Hawaii
Supreme Court on Feb. 29, requesting another extension“for comment by the HSBA on the proposed rule” and asking the
court to share any other comments about the proposed rule that it
received. In the letter, Sia reiterated the bar’s concern that bad
and improper legal advice by untrained, unlicensed and unregulated
individuals can result in the loss of legal rights or opportunities,
which is the reason the bar association “has developed and
recommended a rule to define the ‘practice of law’ as no such
definition currently exists.” However, Sia also acknowledged the
concerns the proposal received from various professional groups
during the comment period, stating in the letter, “It was not the
HSBA’s intention or goal to deprive any professional group or any
person of their right to conduct and handle matters they legally are
entitled to do by law. …”

If the Hawaii Supreme Court adopts the language
in its current form, business owners such as Betty Marais would
directly be impacted. Marais owns Legal-Ez, a legal document
preparation service in Honolulu that provides affordable legal
documents to about 20 to 30 customers each month. “I help people to
help themselves,” Marais said. “They come to me with their needs and
they know what they want. I then prepare the documents based upon
the information they provide to me. People save hundreds, if not
thousands, of dollars utilizing my services.”

Some states already have adopted legislation
that regulates, rather than prohibits, nonlawyers who perform
legal-related services for the public.

Marais, who already is bonded and has 25 years
of experience, agreed. “I would welcome that same regulation process
here in Hawaii,” she said. In the
meantime, Marais said she is prepared to do whatever it takes to
keep her business open. “I have decided that being a legal document
preparer is a valuable and necessary community service to the people
that I help,” Marais said. “I will fight to stay in business and to
keep providing my services to the people of
Hawaii
who need [them] and want [them].”

The Hawaii Supreme Court granted the HSBA’s Feb.
29 request and extended the time for the bar’s response to May 30.
After reviewing the public comments submitted, the court will have
the option to reject the proposal, adopt it or adopt a modified
version of the original language. If the court adopts the proposal,
it could take effect as early as July 1.

Final Sentencing

Paralegal who posed as attorney receives probation
and community service.

By Ashley Johnson

Brian Valery, the paralegal who was charged in both New York and Connecticut
in 2007 for impersonating an attorney while employed with Anderson
Kill & Olick in New York, was
sentenced for the New York charges on Jan.
30. In the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, Judge Gregory Carro sentenced
Valery to five years of probation and 100 hours of community
service. Valery also was ordered to pay back $225,000 he received
from Anderson Kill as compensation while posing as an attorney.

According to Jennifer Kushner of the Manhattan
district attorney’s office, Valery first pled guilty to grand
larceny in the second degree on Oct. 10, 2007, at which time he was
ordered to pay a restitution fee of $150,000 immediately — the first
portion of the $225,000. Upon that payment, Valery was allowed to
re-plead to grand larceny in the third degree on Jan. 30. Over his
5-year probation period, he must pay the remaining $75,000 to
Anderson Kill, and also must complete the 100 hours of community
service.

Since Valery’s attorney impersonation charges
first came to light last year, paralegals around the country have
been angry about the possible damage to the paralegal field’s
reputation. “As a paralegal and president of the New York City
Paralegal Association, I am outraged,” said Letitia Smith, a
litigation paralegal at Fensterstock & Partners in New York. “Our profession
is working hard to obtain more recognition in the legal community
and something like this just sets a bad example. Many people have
impersonated attorneys throughout the years but when a member of the
paralegal community does so, it reflects badly upon all paralegals.”

On Jan. 1 California Assembly Bill 886 went into
effect, creating a number of significant changes in notarial law
that affect paralegal notaries throughout the state. Specific forms
of identification now are required from clients, including
fingerprints in certain circumstances, and penalties for notaries
now are stricter. The bill, introduced in February 2007 by
Assemblywoman Sharon Runner from the 36th assembly district, also
was supported by Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and Los
Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca.

Tim Reiniger, executive director of the National
Notary Association, cited the growing problem of real estate fraud,
specifically in Los AngelesCounty, as motivation behind the bill’s
creation. According to Reiniger, a letter dated September 2007 from
Cooley to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger stated that about 70 percent of
all real estate fraud investigations in
Los AngelesCounty
involved criminal and unethical notaries. “I don’t believe mortgage
fraud takes place without the involvement of a notary in some way,”
Reiniger said. “Two central documents [deed of trust and mortgage]
involve the notary identifying the principal. A notary who is
unethical in the sense of not requiring the personal appearance [of
the principal] — which is fundamental — will [notarize the document]
without the physical appearance.”

Another new feature of the bill is that notaries
renewing their status must now submit fingerprints to the Department
of Justice for a background check. “I believe this [new part of the
law will] be helpful in preventing anyone from being a
not-so-dependable notary,” said Mary E. Kelly, a self-employed
notary since 2004 based in Stockton, Calif. “The new law also [will]
help prevent someone with a history of being [unethical] from
becoming a notary.”

Aside from adapting to stricter identification
guidelines, notaries also have had to replace old certificate forms
to reflect the new laws. Language about personal knowledge was
removed from the old forms, and a new penalty of perjury provision
was inserted into the statutory certificate of acknowledgement form.

With
California
trying to crack down on mortgage fraud with measures including
tougher notary laws, will other states follow its lead? The Federal
Bureau of Investigation’s Web site lists
California among the top 10 states for incidences of
mortgage fraud, along with Florida,
Georgia,
Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan,
New York, Ohio,
Texas and Utah. “We would not be surprised [if other
states adopted similar laws] given the importance of California,”
said Reiniger, describing California’s status as a large business
center, which results in a high number of notarized documents that
appear in other states through interstate commerce. “Other states
will quickly see the elimination of the personal knowledge
identification criteria and the penalty of perjury statement on the
Acknowledgement certificate as fraud-fighting measures. On the other
hand, California was the first to require notaries to receive
thumbprints in journals, which went into effect in the 1990s, and no
state has yet copied that requirement even though that is supported
by the FBI, particularly in the climate of mortgage fraud,” he said.

Despite extra steps required of notaries by AB
886, the creators of the bill and its supporters believe the new
laws will protect potential victims of real estate fraud.
“Everything about [AB 886] is only to help people and make it a more
serious offense in case there’s fraud,” Schulz said. “There’s so
much of it going on.”

New Association Forms

Freelance and independent paralegals find support
virtually with the
American Freelance Paralegal Association.

By Lois Fiorelli

A new paralegal association now is available to give
freelance and independent paralegals in the
United States and Canada the opportunity to share
ideas and experiences about their businesses. On Jan. 8 the American
Freelance Para­legal Association was formed to provide these
paralegal small business owners support in their ventures.

AFPA emerged from the Yahoo Freelance Paralegal
Group, of which the association’s founders all are members. “We got
together by teleconference one day and discussed forming AFPA, first
creating a mission statement,” said David Moyer, AFPA’s president
and owner of Moyer Paralegal Services in
Cuyahoga Falls,
Ohio. According to Moyer, who has
been a paralegal for 14 years and freelancing for nine years, “There
are plenty of organizations out there — things that have to do with
being a paralegal. We felt there wasn’t anything out there for the
paralegal that is a small business owner, i.e., the freelance
paralegal.”

Membership dues for AFPA are $85 for the first
year and then $125 annually. Currently, AFPA has seven members, and
has opened membership to freelancers and independents in
Canada
and the United
States. “At the appropriate
juncture, we’ll encompass a more global marketing strategy,” Moyer
said. However, AFPA is “attempting to make our presence known
through prestigious periodicals such as LAT, our Web site, monthly
online chat sessions and word of mouth,” he said. “We don’t have a
specific number of members we hope to obtain, but we will strive to
make AFPA a viable, respected organization for the legal community.”

Law firms around the United States impact the environment
by taking part in the ABA-EPA challenge.

By Ashley Johnson

In March 2007, the American Bar Association and the
Environmental Protection Agency issued a challenge to law firms:
conserve energy and reduce paper. One year later, the challenge,
which officially is coined the ABA-EPA Law Office Climate Challenge,
has more than 50 law firms and 100 law offices signed up to be
partners or leaders in one or more of the four programs, which are
Best Practices for Office Paper Management, WasteWise, Green Power
and Energy Star.

The overall challenge idea is much more complex
than just conserving resources such as energy and paper; rather, the
idea is to encourage law firms to begin thinking about what can be
done for conservation measures to become more sustainable. “It’s
supposed to be a starting point, not an end point,” said Dan
Eisenberg, public service vice chair for the air quality committee
of the ABA Section on Environment, Energy and Resources in
Washington, D.C. “A firm shouldn’t sign up for the challenge and
then have that be everything they do.”

The challenge is the brainchild of Howard
Hoffman, a lawyer with the EPA’s office of general counsel in
Washington,
D.C., and David Friedland, a principal at
Beveridge & Diamond in
Washington,
D.C. Both are members of the air
quality committee, which is a group within the ABA’s Section on Environment, Energy and
Resources. It was decided to model the programs in the challenge
after existing EPA programs.

To enroll in the climate challenge, law firms
must fill out an enrollment form, which is available online at the
challenge’s Web site,
www.abanet.org/environ/climatechallenge/home.shtml. A firm can
enroll on behalf of just one office, more than one office, or the
entire firm or organization. The challenge’s Web site also lists
detailed steps on how to complete the enrollment form. Once a law
firm submits the enrollment form, it then is listed as a law office
climate challenge partner. Law firms that become partners and
leaders will be highlighted on the Web site for the challenge.

The Marten Law Group, an environmental law firm
with offices in Washington and
Oregon, was the first law firm in the
Pacific Northwest
to take part in the challenge by enrolling in the Best Practices
program. “We’re working on basically reducing everything we possibly
can in our office and in our practice,” said Eve Rashby-Pollock, the
senior paralegal at the Marten Law Group’s
Seattle
office and its chief sustainability officer.

Arnold & Porter, a law firm with eight offices
in the United States
and abroad, has taken actions that don’t fall into any of the
challenge’s categories. Arnold & Porter’s
Washington, D.C., and New
York offices use hybrids as part of the
firm’s car service for transporting clients and attorneys. “One
thing I plan to do this year is to also get all of our offices in
line and make sure we have a sedan service that uses hybrid cars,”
said Toccarra Gates, senior legal assistant in Arnold & Porter’s
Washington, D.C., office. The firm already has installed a tire pump
in the parking garage of the
Washington,
D.C., office so employees can
properly inflate their cars’ tires. The firm also uses strictly
green cleaning and bathroom products, and is eliminating plastic
water bottles in conference rooms.

Both Gates and Rashby-Pollock became integral to
their firms’ participation in the challenge by approaching upper
management. “I actually think paralegals are in a really good
position to initiate this sort of thing because they are in touch
with every level of staff,” Rashby-Pollock said. “Everyone goes to
the paralegals when they want to know about document management and
paper usage; they’re the ones who really know.”

Another way paralegals can get involved is by
initiating a green committee, which can oversee implementation of
the climate challenge and other environmental sustainability
programs. According to Eisenberg, paralegals often are involved in
the practical aspects of legal work, such as document productions,
and can produce ideas that attorneys might not think of. “I think
what a lot of firms are doing — and I think it’s a good idea — is
they’re starting green committees,” Eisenberg said.

Gates indicated three major steps paralegals and
law firms can take to get started in the challenge and develop green
programs: create a group, prioritize your goals and get management
approval. “I think people are accepting the fact that this is the
direction that we have to go in,” Gates said. “We can’t continue to
use resources the way that we were using them, say, 10 years ago; we
need to start making some changes.”

While the challenge’s membership is expanding,
the goal is to not only increase that in the next year but also to
change the way firms think. “We are hoping that law firms will use
the climate challenge as an opportunity to think seriously about how
their offices can be made more environmentally sustainable,”
Eisenberg said. “And take steps to make their offices more efficient
and environmentally friendly.”

LegalTech
New York
Draws Record Attendance

Technology show features latest trends and new
education tracks.

By Tommy Sangchompuphen

As technology in the legal field has grown, so, too,
has LegalTech New York.
Already billed as the largest legal technology show in the United States, this year’s event, held in New York City Feb. 5 to
Feb. 7 and organized by ALM Events, had a record 13,000 attendees,
with a significant increase in the amount of attorneys and support
staff compared to past years. “The last couple of years have been a
major turning point for the legal technology industry. Law firms and
corporate legal departments now understand that technology is
something they have to adapt into their everyday practice,” said Amy
Juers, chief executive officer of Edge Legal Marketing, a
Minneapolis-based marketing and public relations firm serving
companies targeting the legal market.

Juers added that the look of LegalTech has
changed considerably over the years too, especially in terms of
marketing and promotion. “Everywhere you turn[ed], you [saw] more
vendor booths, logos and advertising. The legal technology market is
crowded and fierce. Exhibitors are clamoring to get their brand
noticed, even if it means putting their ad on marble floors, in
restroom stalls or elevators,” she said.

The value of those who work directly with legal
technology also will
become more important as technology continues to expand and become
more affordable. “Today, even a small firm or practitioner can
purchase almost any kind of computer-based practice support system
at a reasonable price. However, many of these systems are
complicated and require hardware purchases and highly trained staffs
to really make them work,” said Ian Levit, vice president of Levit &
James, a provider of document conversion software and the maker of
Best Authority, an add-on to Microsoft Word that assists legal
professionals in creating tables of authorities.

LegalTech
New York
continued to give legal vendors — large and small — opportunities to
showcase their products and services directly to consumers. “Several
popular technical applications and services discussed at the show
were electronic discovery, collaboration tools and SharePoint. Of
course, the legal community is always interested in what the big
players in the industry are announcing or putting in the spotlight,”
Juers said.

LegalTech West Coast will be held June 26 to 27,
at the Los AngelesConvention Center. LegalTech New York
2009 will be held Feb. 2 to Feb. 4, at the New York Hilton in New York City.

Who Really Owns Law Firm E-mails?

California
district court finds that some e-mails are personal property.

By Anthony J. Iannini, AACP, DCP, and Heidi Lowry

Are the e-mails that paralegals send and receive at
the office personal property or the property of the firm? Although
most paralegals might answer that all e-mails belong to the firm,
the recent decision in Sam Bedwell, et al. v. Fish & Richardson,
2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 88595 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2007), found that
isn’t always the case. In the decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Jan
M. Adler, the court ruled that while some e-mails are considered
firm property, there are those that should be considered personal
property and that a paralegal is allowed to keep when he or she
leaves a firm, even though they were created on a firm computer.

In Bedwell v. Fish & Richardson,
defendant Fish & Richardson, a national law firm, alleged that
plaintiff Suzanne M. Moreno, a former paralegal at the firm’s
San Diego office who initiated litigation
against Fish & Richardson for denial of family medical leave, took
confidential documents belonging to the firm without permission when
she left her position in August 2005. The documents included
Moreno’s timesheets, which reflected work she did on
behalf of the firm’s clients, and various e-mails between
Moreno
and colleagues at the firm, including her managers and the human
resources department staff. After learning that
Moreno
had these documents during the discovery phase of the litigation,
the firm requested that she immediately return the documents,
arguing that they were the exclusive property of the firm, but she
refused.

The parties agreed to divide the e-mails into
three categories: communications regarding
Moreno’s request for a transfer to the firm’s
Dallas
office, Moreno’s reassignment to the
firm’s office in San Diego and Moreno’s work assignments. The court ruled
that Moreno’s “time[sheets] and any
e-mail(s) regarding [Moreno’s] work
assignments which reportedly contain[ed] client names and relate[d]
to services performed or to be performed by [Moreno]
on behalf of the firm’s clients” were the property of the firm and
had to be returned to the firm’s attorney. The court further ruled
that Moreno could maintain an inventory of the
documents but she could not keep copies of the documents unless she
obtained them through the normal course of discovery.

However, the court disagreed with the firm on
the issue of the remaining e-mail communications, which Moreno was allowed to keep. The court found
that “the e-mails which concern [Moreno’s] individual status as an
employee of [the firm], such as her request for a transfer to the
Dallas office or her reassignment to the San Diego office, and which
do not contain client names and concern services performed or to be
performed by [Moreno] on behalf of the firm’s clients, are of a
different character and warrant different treatment.”

The court further found that the e-mails in
question “did not relate to the representation of a firm client but
rather relate[d] to [Moreno’s] individual
relationship with her employer” and could not be “swept into the
broad category of property which belongs to the firm.”

The International Paralegal Management
Association was not surprised by the decision. According to a
statement issued to LAT on March 31 from several of the IPMA board
members.

This decision could motivate law firms and
corporations to re-evaluate their confidentiality policies and
procedures. “[T]he ruling in this case may encourage firms to review
written policies regarding the removal of documents from the firm.
It may be necessary to add greater detail regarding restricted
documents, if necessary, and to clarify and outline the procedure to
request items that the employee may be entitled to copy from his or
her personnel file,” the IPMA statement said.

Whether law firms rewrite their procedures based
on this decision is yet to be seen, but the IPMA suggests that
para­legal managers and employers following best practices keep
information on file regarding an employee’s individual status,
requests for transfer and other issues, and are able to access this
information for departing employees. Also, paralegals that leave a
firm or corporation should go through official means to obtain
needed copies of pertinent documents retained in the human resources
department’s records. As noted in the IPMA statement, “[T]he
plaintiff could have handled the matter in a more professional
manner by formally requesting a copy of the e-mails in her personnel
file prior to her departure.”

The Real Deal

Virtual Deal Rooms transform due diligence.

By Tammy R. Pettinato

Due diligence never has been easy. For buyers it
usually means flying teams of lawyers, paralegals and others to
distant and, increasingly, international locations for tedious and
time-consuming searches through thousands of documents. Sellers
usually face problems coordinating schedules because multiple
potential buyers need to view documents at separate times. The cost
occasionally is so prohibitive that deals are scrapped, and fax
machines and e-mail only marginally ease the burden.

Enter Virtual Deal Rooms, or VDRs, which are
secure, Web-based transaction systems where important documents are
stored and organized, and dealmakers can communicate without leaving
their offices. Although mainly used for due diligence in mergers and
acquisitions, VDRs currently are being explored for managing
everything from IPOs to bankruptcy, which could prove to be
invaluable for paralegals.

Jay Loyola, regional director for Merrill
Datasite, an international pro­vider of VDR solutions based in
Irvine, Calif., said his company’s VDRs optimize the due diligence
process. “Our clients or clients that use Datasite dramatically
reduce transaction time and expense through the presentation of
documents that have been electronically captured and indexed
online.”

So, how do VDRs work? Typically, documents are
scanned into the VDR and key players are given password-protected
access. Multiple people can access the VDR at the same time from any
location, eliminating scheduling and travel issues that plagued
paper-based deals.

VDRs also trump paper-based due diligence with
their search functionalities. The best VDRs on the market are
keyword searchable and some allow Boolean searching. What used to be
a needle-in-a-haystack process of searching for relevant sentences
or paragraphs in paper documents has been reduced to a few
keystrokes. VDRs also allow sellers to see who is accessing their
documents and how often.

“I loved using [the VDR],” said Mary Ellen
O’Dell Schantz, a paralegal with Harter Secrest & Emery in Rochester, N.Y.
She recently facilitated a deal involving about 20 people from
different teams in different locations. “… [E]veryone knew he or she
was looking at the most recent draft of a document so it cut down on
confusion. Since everything had to come to me before it was
uploaded, I had a good handle on what documents were reviewed,
completed and signed, and could provide a status to the users. There
was no frenetic running around like in a traditional closing.”

Not everyone has jumped on the VDR bandwagon,
however. According to a December 2007 report by the
Institute
of Mergers, Acquisitions
and Alliances (MANDA) in
Zurich, Switzerland, many potential users of
VDRs worry about security. The report notes that, “With a VDR, more
people have access to confidential information compared with a
[paper data room]. For this reason, growth in VDR usage has not been
higher.”

For the most part, it has been large
corporations — those managing deals upward of $1 billion — that have
jumped on the VDR bandwagon. Yet, as technology improves and costs
decrease, more midrange companies and law firms are adopting the
trend. The MANDA report predicts, “…VDRs [eventually] will become
the accepted and most widely used data room tool for M&A
transactions.” Paralegals, take note — VDRs could not only make your
jobs easier but change the very dynamic of what you do.

Legal Resources

Inside Vision

InsideLegal, a blog launched by Envision Agency on
Feb. 5, discusses issues that affect the legal technology industry.
The blog also covers industry comings and goings, such as new hires,
and mergers and acquisition news; marketing strategy; PR best
practices, such as how-to articles, media planning and publicity;
and vendor relations, such as technology trends, securing speaking
opportunities, pitching byline articles and legal industry
developments. InsideLegal also features guest bloggers, such as
consultants, vendors, firms, media, and general business and
strategy contributors. For more information, visit
www.insidelegal.com.

Super Site

JD Supra, a Web 2.0 business, is a free online
platform to post court documents, filings, articles, client alerts,
original research, marketing materials and document templates. The
database allows for searching, driven by Google Mini, and the site
also features “The Scoop,” which presents new, recently released
documents, filings and decisions. Profiles are listed on the site
for recent contributors, and the resources section lists products
and services for the legal community based on users’
recommendations. Also found in the resources section are Web sites
for federal courts, state courts, law school clinics and journals,
and national and state bar associations. For more information, visit
www.jdsupra.com,
or contact Allan Ripp at (212) 262-7477.

50 Careers

“50 Legal Careers for Non-Lawyers,” by Ursula Furi-Perry,
published by the American Bar Association, delves into booming
careers for paralegals. The book also discusses career options, such
as legal administration and management, for paralegals who want to
move their careers forward. Each career listed in the book includes
interviews, responsibilities, education and skills, and ways to
enter that career. Some of the other positions listed in the book
include those for self-starters, entry-level jobs and legal careers
outside of law firm environments. The book is available for $19.95
from the ABA
at
www.abanet.org/abastore.

Analyze This

“Legal Analysis and Writing for Paralegals, third
edition” by William H. Putman, published by Delmar Cengage Learning,
provides an in-depth look at the legal analysis and writing process.
The book is divided into three sections, with the first section
discussing analysis and the legal principles involved. The second
section covers elements and tools in the analysis and writing
processes, and the third section talks about how to apply the
principles explained in the first two sections. The book also
discusses how to draft legal correspondence, legal research
memoranda and court briefs. An activity CD, which includes
assignments, chapter outlines and study questions, also is included.
The book is available online at
www.delmarlearning.com for $72.95.

Smart Encyclopedia

The Encyclopedia of Business Graphics, by
SmartDraw.com, is a free, searchable database that provides detailed
information on any type of chart, diagram, schematic and
illustration used by businesses. Along with each detailed
description is an image of the graphic, information on the graphic’s
typical uses and best practices for creating the graphic, as well as
tutorials, success stories, related activities and white papers.
Additionally, free templates can be downloaded that also can be
edited. The graphics can be searched by type of graphic or type of
activity. For more information, visit
www.smartdraw.com/eobg.